Imperial Audit: 42 Billion Reasons Why Directors Should Be Cautious

[vc_row][vc_column width=”2/3″][vc_column_text]A pilot was welcoming passengers to the flight shortly after take off. “Thank you for flying with us this morning. The weather is…..” He broke off his welcome with a sharp scream followed by, ”Oh my God, this is going to really hurt. It’s burning.” There was complete radio silence for a full minute before he returned. “Ladies and gentlemen I sincerely apologize for that incident, as I dropped a very hot cup of coffee on my lap. You should see the front of my trousers!” Out of the back came a worried shout from a passenger, “If you think yours are bad, you should see the back of mine.”

The Imperial Bank forensic report is out and any bank director, actually scratch that, any director of a Kenyan company should be having severe indigestion right about now. Following its findings, the Central Bank (CBK), the Kenya Deposit Insurance Corporation (KDIC) and the bank in receivership have sued nine individuals, one deceased person’s estate and eight companies in a bid to recover Kshs 42.4 billion of the banks assets and deposits. Yes, the figure is simply eye watering by its sheer size. This civil suit represents a watershed moment for corporate governance in Kenya. With the exception of three independent non-executive directors (INEDs), the other seven individuals (including the deceased) were directors representing the eight companies that were shareholders in the bank.

While the individuals are being sued for breach of fiduciary duty – a basic tenet of corporate governance – the companies therein named are being sued as being beneficiaries of what may come to be Kenya’s single largest corporate fraud since the 19th century explorer Henry Morton Stanley stepped off a boat onto Kenyan shores.
Over the period of ten years from 2006 to 2016, the bank was found to have operated two banking systems, with the illegitimate system passing through over billions of shillings in fraudulent disbursements over that period. The non-executive directors, including the chairman, were tightly joined at the hip and had cross shareholding in various other companies some of which were property related. In view of the fact that this was starting to look like a brotherhood of veritable kleptomaniacs, the three INEDs who joined in quick succession- two who joined on 1st of July 2014 and one on 1st February 2015- may not have been on the board long enough to cotton on what was, and had been, going on for the previous nine years. But today they are jointly and severally liable for years of mismanagement. These chaps were probably pleased as punch to have made it to the board at all and may have been snookered by the fast talking CEO, whose verbosity is alleged to have steamrolled various discussions on the board audit committee which he regularly attended. Now the three INEDs have to get lumped with the other directors all of whom have been painted with a mouthful of accusations over and above breach of fiduciary duty including negligence, gross negligence, fraud and theft.

One could very well argue then, that banks owe a duty of care to their directors to provide rigorous training in both corporate governance and risk management. There are now 42.4 billion reasons why bank directors need to know what they are signing up for. Actually, I could kick it up a notch and say that the CBK should require a made-for-purpose bank director training that one must undertake before they sign off on those ‘Fit and Proper Forms’ that are required for any bank director and senior officer before appointment to the board.
Yet the CBK is not entirely blameless in this mess, as all this happened on their watch. The regulator cannot claim that it relied on audited accounts to arrive at their conclusions for renewal of licenses. There were glaring irregularities in the governance such as the Board Executive Committee undertaking the role of the Board Credit Committee (BCC) without the proper structures in place including having an INED chair the BCC as per Prudential Guidelines. There were allegedly no notices for or minutes of meetings for a BCC from as far back as 2006. Someone was asleep at the wheel over at the banking supervision unit. The lack of INEDs until February 2014 should also have raised a slap on the wrist from the regulator. But it doesn’t appear to have. The only redemption here is that the regulator eventually stepped in, and quite likely because there was a new sheriff in that town.

Whether that amount of money is feasibly recoverable is something for the courts to determine. And directors should not try and draw comfort that they can ask the companies whose board they sit on to put in indemnification provisions in the articles of association or in their appointment letters. Section 194 of the Companies Act 2015 specifically voids any provisions that a company may make to exempt directors from any liability that attaches from negligence, default, breach of duty or breach of trust. However, companies are permitted to purchase Director and Officer (D&O) Liability Insurance to provide that specific indemnity from negligence etc. But there’s a catch. The same Companies Act does not allow D&O cover to provide indemnity (i) against fines from criminal proceedings, (ii) fines from regulators for non-compliance, (iii) defense of criminal proceedings and, finally, (iv) defense of civil proceedings brought by the company itself in which judgment is given against the director.

Therefore even if the Imperial directors had D&O cover, such cover busts two out of the four prohibitions above, viz (ii) and (iv) since the company is the plaintiff in the civil suit.

What’s the moral of this sordid story? Being a director of any company is risky business. Being a director on a board full of business buddies is even murkier business, the kind that requires one to keep a set of adult diapers on hand as they undertake the flight of their lives.
[email protected]
Twitter: @carolmusyoka[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][vc_column width=”1/3″][/vc_column][/vc_row]

Banking Crisis in Kenya

[vc_row][vc_column width=”2/3″][vc_column_text]The Kenyan banking sector is in turmoil with vicious rumours swirling about the health of many banks and discerning where the truth is sandwiched between various shades of grey is remarkably difficult. It would be remiss to discuss a few banks without looking at the whole industry to begin with, and the macroeconomic environment that they are operating in that has led to the current state of dire illness in some banks. Mariana is a businesswoman. Since 2011, she has been running a small security guarding company, providing guards to small businesses. In 2014, she was encouraged to grow her business using the preferential supplier incentives that the government was providing for women and youth. She bid and successfully won a tender to supply guarding services for a government ministry that had multiple installations that required security. All of a sudden she had to recruit two hundred new guards and purchase uniforms and boots for them. She approached her bank and showed them the government contract against which they provided an overdraft facility for her, using her retired parent’s house as security. In the beginning, the cash was good, Mariana was paid on time and she was able to pay salaries and slowly start reducing the overdraft. But in 2015, her invoices to the Ministry started taking three to four months to be paid, and she increasingly turned to the ballooning overdraft facility to pay her guards’ monthly salaries. Within 3 months she had reached her limit on the facility and the bank was reluctant to increase it. She was desperately in trouble: hundreds of salaries to pay, an overdraft facility to reduce and her parents’ house in jeopardy. Mariana is not alone. This story is replicated hundreds of times at both national and county government level. Small business owners who have provided goods and services to national and county governments but experienced the sharp cash crunch that occurred in 2014 and 2015 which meant that their payments were significantly delayed. Some of these businesses had been responsible, cash was received and ploughed back into the business’s working capital cycle to pay for the goods and purchase more. Some of these businesses were irresponsible, and buoyed by the huge payments in their accounts for the first time in their lives, diverted some cash into non income generating assets like cars and land. Whatever the case, many businesses had used commercial bank loans to fund the sudden expansion caused by a large buyer of their goods and services. The slowdown in government spending has hit these businesses hard, and invariably impacted their ability to repay their loans. This is very apparent in the growth of the non-performing loan book amongst the banks as well as the reduced profitability of most of the banks judging from the 2015 end year financials.

Now let’s take a step back and look at the role of the regulator. That the government had slowed down its spending has not been a secret. The role of a banking regulator is to constantly monitor the financial and operational health of the banks under its watch. Basic economics: a slow down in money supply will cause the economy to contract and for businesses to start exhibiting financial stress. A basic prudent requirement therefore is for a central bank to require their licensees to undertake stress testing of their loan books for a number of reasons, key of which is to determine if the banks are making adequate provisions for the deteriorating loans as well as to establish how much of their loan book is exposed to the key economic metric that is causing the stress, in this case reduced government spending. In so doing, the regulator quickly establishes exactly what percentage of the banking industry’s assets are likely to be of a diminishing quality, what impact that will have on the respective banks’ balance sheets and whether discussions regarding additional capital injection need to be had with bank managements.

Do we have rogue banks? The recent events point to the fact that we do. The existential crisis that is emerging is that the regulator’s banking supervision unit is not on top of its oversight game. But it’s not only the regulator on the spot here. The audit committees of some of these banks have clearly not been holding their internal auditors to account. The internal auditors, who, together with the credit risk teams, are supposed to be regularly reviewing the credit quality of their loan books and have a duty to raise the flag on non-performing loans, or insider loans that do not have the appropriate documentation and requisite securities against which banks have recourse in the event of default. Some clever institutions know exactly how to manipulate the bank system so as not to reflect the poor servicing of bad loans at month end. They also know how to suppress non-performing loans by keeping them as overdrafts whose deteriorating quality is difficult to discern, as there are no monthly amortization repayments that would indicate non-serviceability. Section 769 of the new Companies Act 2015 requires shareholders of quoted companies to appoint members of the audit committee. The mischief that this is supposed to cure is to ensure that the shareholders take ownership of who is providing appropriate governance over the books of the company. Shareholders must ensure that the audit committee members are not only financially literate individuals, but, in the case of quoted banks, at least one should have some commercial banking operational experience and therefore know how to identify where dead bodies are being buried. The Central Bank prudential guidelines require bank audit committees to be chaired by independent non-executive directors. What is becoming crystal clear is that the oversight capacity of these audit committees is seriously wanting as there seems to be a lack of knowledge on how internal systems can be manipulated to hide bad loans. Nobody is blameless in this crisis at both regulator and board director level.
[email protected]
Twitter: @carolmusyoka[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][vc_column width=”1/3″][/vc_column][/vc_row]